187kph and only gets fined.

gramar

Riskymove wrote: »

Out of interest can you point to anything showing she was convicted of careless driving.

All the articles mention she pleaded guilty to "speeding"

There is no mention of careless driving

Surely speeding is carelessness in itself?

Idbatterim

read the first page, then skipped the next ten, but the car would be roaring at that speed you would imagine and how can you not know what speed you are doing when you are flying passed other cars, who are doing in and around the speed limit?

irish coldplayer

Having seen judge durkan in action a few times, this does not surprise me.

He was a political appointment he is very good mates with Enda Kenny and is from Mayo.
He is a pompous gob****e most of the local solicitors think he is an idiot with very limited actual knowledge of the law.

gramar

EazyD wrote: »

In fairness, it doesn't take a genius to realise that the impact damage from a crash at over 100mph will be significantly higher than at 50 or even 70. Percentages mean nothing really

Obviously that's true but in areas where the speed limit is 50 there are likely to be pedestrians, cyclists etc which you'd hope you wouldn't be meeting on the M whatever.

The accident rate on national roads is way higher than on motorways. The circumstances are completely different despite the speed limit being lower.

dickface

Female privilege.

CiniO

VinLieger wrote: »

Because looking at this from a percentage point of view is ridiculous.

It's simple how much damage will an out of control car at 50kph do compared to an out of control car at 167kph

You are missing the main point here.
It's obvious that difference in damage in casefof accident will be huge between 50km/h and 167km/h.

But as well difference will be huge between 30 and 120.

That's not what we are talking about. I don't thing you are proposing to limit every vehicle on every road to 30km/h.

We are talking about danger that speeding is causing, and that directly relates to percentage.

I.e. if they designed a road and put 30km/h limit that was because they thought that it's the safe speed and allow for stopping distance of about 12 metres.
if you speed there by 66% by doing 50km/h you increase your stopping distance to about 24 metres, and risk causing much bigger damage that at 30km/h.

And exactly the same if you decide to do 200km/h on 120km/h limit, you speed by 66% and increase your stopping distance from about 90m to 180m. Exactly same thing.

bear1

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/former-rsa-chief-gay-byrne-outraged-at-lenient-penalty-for-speeding-beauty-queen-30653471.html

Well Gay Byrne is getting involved now

Riskymove

gramar wrote: »

Surely speeding is carelessness in itself?

nope

It is a more serious conviction with heavier penalties than speeding

VinLieger

CiniO wrote: »

You are missing the main point here.
It's obvious that difference in damage in casefof accident will be huge between 50km/h and 167km/h.

But as well difference will be huge between 30 and 120.

That's not what we are talking about. I don't thing you are proposing to limit every vehicle on every road to 30km/h.

We are talking about danger that speeding is causing, and that directly relates to percentage.

I.e. if they designed a road and put 30km/h limit that was because they thought that it's the safe speed and allow for stopping distance of about 12 metres.
if you speed there by 66% by doing 50km/h you increase your stopping distance to about 24 metres, and risk causing much bigger damage that at 30km/h.

And exactly the same if you decide to do 200km/h on 120km/h limit, you speed by 66% and increase your stopping distance from about 90m to 180m. Exactly same thing.

This all makes a massive assumption that the speed limits for said designed roads are correct.

A prime example is the N11 in Dublin, It is a dual carriageway designed road and the natural speed for it is 80kph, every other road of similar design in the country has the same limit yet the N11 for the vast majority is 60kph. If you do the natural speed limit of 80kph you are doing what the road is designed for yet you are technically going 33% over the legal limit.

The same can be said for the regional roads around the country that 2 cars can barely drive past each other and have winding turns all over the place and very blind corners yet they have a limit of 80kph?

Rubberchikken

of course she had to know what speed she was doing. how stupid would you have to be to not realise you were diriving at 180+ kph?

and a judge that basis his decision on what sex someone is or what they look like is not doing their job at all.

sh1tstirrer

gramar wrote: »

Obviously that's true but in areas where the speed limit is 50 there are likely to be pedestrians, cyclists etc which you'd hope you wouldn't be meeting on the M whatever.

The accident rate on national roads is way higher than on motorways. The circumstances are completely different despite the speed limit being lower.

Which is also the reason you can't compare the two using percentages. There are other road users on a motorway imagine if you clipped the center divide at 187kph or got a tyre blowout.

JJJJNR

VinLieger wrote: »

This all makes a massive asptionIthat the speed limits for said designed roads are correct.

A prime example is the N11 in Dublin, It is a dual carriageway designed road and the natural speed for it is 80kph, every other road of similar design in the country has the same limit yet the N11 for the vast majority is 60kph. If you do the natural speed limit of 80kph you are doing what the road is designed for yet you are technically going 33% over the legal limit.

The same can be said for the regional roads around the country that 2 cars can barely drive past each other and have winding turns all over the place and very blind corners yet they have a limit of 80kph?

The n11 is all over the shop, 120…100…80…60…100…120…… its a joke I got slapped with 3 points for driving at 109kph in the 100 zone, about a half mile down the road it goes back to 120..

Feisar

How the hell did she not realize she was doing 187Kmph!??!

I hit that sort of speed in Germany and I can say one would not need to be topping the charts in spacial awareness to realize.

Barely There

VinLieger wrote: »

This all makes a massive assumption that the speed limits for said designed roads are correct.

A prime example is the N11 in Dublin, It is a dual carriageway designed road and the natural speed for it is 80kph, every other road of similar design in the country has the same limit yet the N11 for the vast majority is 60kph. If you do the natural speed limit of 80kph you are doing what the road is designed for yet you are technically going 33% over the legal limit.

The same can be said for the regional roads around the country that 2 cars can barely drive past each other and have winding turns all over the place and very blind corners yet they have a limit of 80kph?

There are many factors which affect the Design Speed of a road, and thus the speed limit.
The main two factors are

• The Alignment Constraints - i.e the geometry of the road (bendiness) and the visibility afforded to drivers.
• and the Layout Constraints - the cross-section (width) of the road and the frequency of junctions/accesses.

There is no such thing as a 'natural speed limit' for a dual carriageway - there is a Design Speed, which is calculated, and an associated legal Speed Limit.

CiniO

sh1tstirrer wrote: »

Which is also the reason you can't compare the two using percentages. There are other road users on a motorway imagine if you clipped the center divide at 187kph or got a tyre blowout.

If you clipped centre divine at 187km/h you would most likely be gone, bit less likely if you did it at 120km/h. Obviously bigger chance of fatal result at 187km/h.

Same as in the town. If you hit pedestrian at 30km/h he has big chance of surviving. If you hit him at 50km/h he has very little change.

That's why percentages matter.

If you go by amounts it stops making sense.

F.e. do you consider doing 60km/h on 30km/h limit the same grade of offence as doing 150km/h at 120km/h ??? (as both are speeding by 30km/h)
Because from you write I understand that's your logic.

Well it isn't the same grade of offence.
Difference in accident from 120km/h and 150km/h won't be that big. Both will probably end up fatally.

Difference from hitting pedestian at 30km/h or 60km/h is horrendous. At 60km/h he has nearly no chance of surviving, while at 30km/h he will most likely be fine.

Doing 60km/h on 30km/h limits is comparable to doing 240km/h on 120km/h limit. You increase danger by about the same degree

Sam Kade

187 kph seems to be a yearly story.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056851759

Sam Kade

CiniO wrote: »

If you clipped centre divine at 187km/h you would most likely be gone, bit less likely if you did it at 120km/h. Obviously bigger chance of fatal result at 187km/h.

Same as in the town. If you hit pedestrian at 30km/h he has big chance of surviving. If you hit him at 50km/h he has very little change.

That's why percentages matter.

If you go by amounts it stops making sense.

F.e. do you consider doing 60km/h on 30km/h limit the same grade of offence as doing 150km/h at 120km/h ??? (as both are speeding by 30km/h)
Because from you write I understand that's your logic.

Well it isn't the same grade of offence.
Difference in accident from 120km/h and 150km/h won't be that big. Both will probably end up fatally.

Difference from hitting pedestian at 30km/h or 60km/h is horrendous. At 60km/h he has nearly no chance of surviving, while at 30km/h he will most likely be fine.

Doing 60km/h on 30km/h limits is comparable to doing 240km/h on 120km/h limit. You increase danger by about the same degree

What are you trying to prove? That they should both receive the same punishment?

LillySV

she was caught on a straight motorway in a car well capable of doin that speed....why do people wana see her hung up for it?? im delighted she got out of it and hope others do too...why does the ordinary citizen have to expect harsh penalties for small mishaps when a pack of a%%holes in banks as well as our corrupt politicians and supposed regulators all walked away from bankrupting the country without facing any penalty.,.,in fact they all meet in golf courses and laughed and celebrated it!

woodoo

irish coldplayer wrote: »

Having seen judge durkan in action a few times, this does not surprise me.

He was a political appointment he is very good mates with Enda Kenny and is from Mayo.
He is a pompous gob****e most of the local solicitors think he is an idiot with very limited actual knowledge of the law.

So this is the reality of political appointments. Its quite depressing.

Tail Docker

How is it then that the paragons of responsibility that actually are the Germans have many sections of road where 187 is considered "being a dawdler" and would get you flashed and expected to pull over? We nanny our drivers waaay too much. 187 is nothing for a modern car. Our speed limits are like our "moral guidelines" - rooted in the 1950's. Utter guff.

Mars Bar

LillySV wrote: »

she was caught on a straight motorway in a car well capable of doin that speed....why do people wana see her hung up for it?? im delighted she got out of it and hope others do too...why does the ordinary citizen have to expect harsh penalties for small mishaps when a pack of a%%holes in banks as well as our corrupt politicians and supposed regulators all walked away from bankrupting the country without facing any penalty.,.,in fact they all meet in golf courses and laughed and celebrated it!

You've clearly never driven on that motorway.

LillySV

Mars Bar wrote: »

You've clearly never driven on that motorway.

in a car and sometimes on a bike, i do it every day

Karl Stein

He should have sentenced her to no make-up and a three stone gain for 2 years.

She'd probably have been led away from the court in an extremely distressed state.

jimgoose

110 or so on a motorway in a big-ish Merc saloon. Big whoop.

Mars Bar

LillySV wrote: »

in a car and sometimes on a bike, i do it every day

It's as windy as ****. I'm assuming you mean motorbike too.

Tail Docker

Mars Bar wrote: »

It's as windy as ****. I'm assuming you mean motorbike too.

No, a bicycle, he's an animal.

jimgoose

Idbatterim wrote: »

read the first page, then skipped the next ten, but the car would be roaring at that speed you would imagine and how can you not know what speed you are doing when you are flying passed other cars, who are doing in and around the speed limit?

My car's cabin is silent aside from some muffled tyre rumble at around 100mph. So is the brother's 5-Series.

BorneTobyWilde

All cars should be limited to 120 kmh

LillySV

Mars Bar wrote: »

It's as windy as ****. I'm assuming you mean motorbike too.

yea, theres one long bend on the way back to gort and you'd be driving her along about to go into the bend and next thing you could be hit by a big gust without warning, pointing your bike towards the cement wall/meridian!
you drive a bike there as well?

LillySV

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

All cars should be limited to 120 kmh

i bet your a cyclist

Tail Docker

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

All cars should be limited to 120 kmh

Why's that? My van does 160 at its ease. A decent car ought to do 180 at its leisure. They should change their signs and limits, any fool can paint out 120 and make it 180 at a stroke. The 2 becomes an 8 with the one line. The limits are from decades ago. Time and technology move on.

bigroad

Its nice thats she is a good looker ,its cool that she was driving a merc 220,its not good she was driving at 187 kms but the fact is that other people have got harder fines for less.
This leaves me to believe that the Judge parties with her famiily on many a social event.
Its a case of you help me and i will help you .Irish elite at its best.

Shakespeare's Sister

This preferential treatment due to attractiveness does happen (and it can be guys who receive it too, not just women, but admittedly it is moreso women) however I don't know that I'd be blaming the person who gets away with something due to being deemed attractive though - I'd be putting most of the blame in the direction of the dope who lets them off because they find them hot/in possession of nice assets, etc.

Sam Kade

LillySV wrote: »

she was caught on a straight motorway in a car well capable of doin that speed....why do people wana see her hung up for it?? im delighted she got out of it and hope others do too...why does the ordinary citizen have to expect harsh penalties for small mishaps when a pack of a%%holes in banks as well as our corrupt politicians and supposed regulators all walked away from bankrupting the country without facing any penalty.,.,in fact they all meet in golf courses and laughed and celebrated it!

Might have something to do with the fact that she didn't realize what speed she was doing It would give you the impression that she was either telling lies or else day dreaming while driving at that speed.

Sam Kade

Tail Docker wrote: »

Why's that? My van does 160 at its ease. A decent car ought to do 180 at its leisure. They should change their signs and limits, any fool can paint out 120 and make it 180 at a stroke. The 2 becomes an 8 with the one line. The limits are from decades ago. Time and technology move on.

What type of van do you drive?

Merrion

Why's that? My van does 160 at its ease.

No mate - that's the rev meter you're looking at. The speedo is that dial next to it.

Tail Docker

Merrion wrote: »

No mate - that's the rev meter you're looking at. The speedo is that dial next to it.

141 renault Master mwb. 160 at its ease.

Dionysius2

This decision is just some kind of judicial buffoonery. If people like this can get on to the bench then I'm all in favour of removing the appointment of judges from politicians towards some kind of transparent public committee.

Sam Kade

Tail Docker wrote: »

141 renault Master mwb. 160 at its ease.

You're a brave man going that speed in a Renault.

LillySV

Sam Kade wrote: »

Might have something to do with the fact that she didn't realize what speed she was doing It would give you the impression that she was either telling lies or else day dreaming while driving at that speed.

or she was driving along thinkin and wonderin about the amount of boards.ie members that would love to %*de her!:D she has a lovely pair !!! :pac::pac::D

Tail Docker

Sam Kade wrote: »

You're a brave man going that speed in a Renault.

Best van out there. Not knowing that means you know nothing about vans.

Sam Kade

LillySV wrote: »

or she was driving along thinkin and wonderin about the amount of boards.ie members that would love to %*de her!:D she has a lovely pair !!! :pac::pac::D

She's common enough looking.

LillySV

Sam Kade wrote: »

She's common enough looking.

any pics of your woman so!!

Mars Bar

LillySV wrote: »

yea, theres one long bend on the way back to gort and you'd be driving her along about to go into the bend and next thing you could be hit by a big gust without warning, pointing your bike towards the cement wall/meridian!
you drive a bike there as well?

I meant windy as in bendy, not gusty! Although, as mentioned previously, the cross winds near Shannon are an arse.
I've driven on it a good few times but bussed it up and down to college every week. You wouldn't get me on a motorbike!

Sam Kade

Tail Docker wrote: »

Best van out there. Not knowing that means you know nothing about vans.

Give it a few years and if your driving it at that speed it will take less before it falls apart

Sam Kade

LillySV wrote: »

Sam Kade wrote: »

She's common enough looking.

any pics of your woman so!!

Why don't you throw up a pic of yourself and we can compare from there :rolleyes:

A_Sober_Paddy

bear1 wrote: »

This story was doing the rounds on the Motors section last night and today I see it has made the Indo:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/187kph-beauty-queen-escapes-drive-ban-30650507.html

The fact that she said she "didn't know" at what speed she was travelling would have been enough for me to ban her.
Absolutely shameful that she got praised for her honesty, fined 500e and from what I've reading feck all points on the licence.
I give up at this stage how the justice system works in this country.
I'd say the poor bastards that were banned last week for similar actions must be fairly pi33ed off at the ruling.

If it was a fella, he'd have gotten a lot worse, this kinda treatment of women drivers should really stop, lets get some equality on our roads, i've had a number of run in's with road users as a cyclist one once with a male driver all the other times were female drivers...funny thing was never trouble with learner drivers

LillySV

Mars Bar wrote: »

I meant windy as in bendy, not gusty! Although, as mentioned previously, the cross winds near Shannon are an arse.
I've driven on it a good few times but bussed it up and down to college every week. You wouldn't get me on a motorbike!

haha..bikes are best! ...the only strong complaint i have about that road is the fact they closed it from gort to barefield the other day without notice and made me half hour late for work! i read an article on clare fm an hour later sayin it would be closed!! was a disgrace that clare/galway coco didnt give advance warning to commuters

LillySV

Sam Kade wrote: »

LillySV wrote: »

Why don't you throw up a pic of yourself and we can compare from there :rolleyes:

haha..im not the one callin the model common!

the_syco

sh1tstirrer wrote: »

Which is also the reason you can't compare the two using percentages. There are other road users on a motorway imagine if you clipped the center divide at 187kph or got a tyre blowout.

Driving a vehicle on a motorway against the flow of traffic is two points.